Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

The New York Times ^ | 05/08/03 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON, May 7 — President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law — a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base."

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.

The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.

But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.

"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."

Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said.

"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote."

He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.

Mr. Ashcroft noted that Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.

The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate on the legislation.

A report due to be released in the next few days by the Violence Policy Center — a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban — examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."

Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers.

"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said.

For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate even more emotional.

"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hatred. 320 posted on 05/08/2003 1:25 AM PDT by Roscoe

Pity.

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew 7:12,21-23

Jesus will turn away none who seek Him, Roscoe. This thing only is required of you -- you must obey Jesus. It is not fitting that you should advocate the Killing of your Neighbor.

Or will you be like the Rich Young Ruler, who could not give up that which he treasured most, and follow Jesus?

Jesus will turn away none who seek Him.
Follow Him. Do not advocate the killing of your Neighbor.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The more Republicans there are that act like 2A issues are something to be feared, the more likely it is that the RINOs will waiver,

MORBID HUMOR BREAK.

Let's all take notice of the fact that, in competitive races (which are RARE in off-year elections)...

• Practically the ONLY Democrats who actually won seats were those Mid-Western Democrats who wrapped themselves in the Second Amendment and ran non-stop TV commercials of themselves pictured with a rifle in one hand and a prize Buck in the other. They succeeded where the National Democrat Party failed.

• There were some exceptions to this rule. A few Southern Democrats appeared in every available TV spot with a fat leather-bound King James Bible in hand, and actually ran to the Right of their Republican opponents on the critical Abortion issue. These Democrats also succeeded where the rest of their Party failed.

If one were a Cynic (aw, shucks -- little ole' me?), one might say that Local Democrats won in spite of ignoring their National Party, and Local Republicans lost because they listened to their National Party.

But, as always, that's just your:

MORBID HUMOR BREAK

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

[IronJack]

From reading the above posts it sounds like the liberal NY Times has done the job it set out to do. Divide and Conquer.

Blaming the Times for this is like blaming the Washington Post for Watergate. They can't make substance of shadow; Bush gave them the material.

Why is it that a so-called "conservative" president finds it so easy to bargain away our Second Amendment rights? And if we can't rely on him to protect them, who CAN we count on? Or should we just shut up and go like lambs to the slaughter, taking illusory comfort from the fact that the butcher will ply the axe gently?

[SauronOfMordor]

There is no groudswell for this bill and if we scream about the "IF's" it will find it's way into the alphabet media and hurt us. The best thing we can do is quietly let this deal sunset and let President Bush swear he would of signed it if it only made it to his desk. Anything different would be shooting ourselves in the foot

No, the best thing we can do is let the Reps have total certainty that they will pay a political price if the AWB passes. How they work it out among themselves is their business. The Repubs control the House, Senate, and Presidency. They have no excuse

[Mulder]

If John Ashcroft or any other AG (Like Hillary) decided it was his or her responsibility to decide what laws on the books he or she considers Constitutional and enforce them on that priciple, This country would resemble the Taliban in no time

LOL!

It's called "prosecutorial discretion" and happens thousands of times a day in thousands of DA's offices around America.

His first duty is to the supreme law of the land which is the Constitution.

[Joe Brower]

Rather late to the party for this one, but this is too important to ignore! My apologies to anyone who's already here!

Looks like the leftmedia is already stoking the fires, almost a year and half before the feces hits the rotating oscillator. I guess they hope to have every ignorant citizen out there in TV-land whipped into a frenzy by the time this comes up for a vote.

This article was right on the front page of my local NY Times toady, er, affilate, the SHT (aka the "Sarasota Herald-Tribune), under the title "Bush, NRA clash on gun ban", with a FULL PAGE on pg. 11 devoted to this subject.

Hmmmm... Do you think the 1994 AW ban renewal is a subject dear to their heart? Naaaah, couldn't be.

I heartily recommend immediate and preemptive action on this NOW. You can bet your flash supressor that the anti-gunners are going to make a career out of this.

CLICK THIS LINK to go to sample letters that I wrote last week, and use these for your own efforts.

THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!

[from occupied ga]

I've been sending a letter on this subject to my rep, Denise Majette (who replaced the even more egregious Cynthia McKinney) about every couple of months for the last six or so. I have yet to even get a form letter in response, so although Majette has a lot more personal class than McKinney (but then so does a dog turd) I feel that she is still going to vote along with the Nazis Schumer Waxman Feinstein etc. on this one.

[verity]

It may be too late for you to get a rabies shot!

[TLBSHOW]

You are a cut and paste person that knows nothing.

[George W. Bush]

There's a reason why Wall Street likes "gridlock" -- you can never trust Democrats to oppose the growth of Big Government, but you can trust Republicans to oppose the growth of Big Government -- when Democrats are in Power. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong. If Republicans will oppose the growth of Big Government while they are in Power, I'll eat my hat -- on a half-shell, with cocktail sauce. But I don't expect to eat my hat any time soon.

A point often missed by the GOP-at-any-price voters. We have to ask what our winning of the three branches has gotten us? Record spending? Sodomite agenda? Sending abortion funds to Africa (to fight 'AIDS')? Nationalizing education? Lose the most important judicial nominations? Campaign finance reform? Assault weapon ban?

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.

We won and this is our prize?

[TLBSHOW]

last thing, either Bush stands with the second amendment or he stands with the liberal gun control rats like Chuckie and Clinton and Diane.

[sheltonmac]

Everyone can and should be speaking out on this issue. But where were the Second Amendment defenders back in 2000? All of Bush's anti-gun credentials were right there on his campaign website. He stated his support for the assault weapons ban. He made it clear that if Congress passed legislation requiring trigger locks on all new handguns, he would go along with it. Anyone who had bothered to learn what this guy stood for knew what they were getting when they voted for him. I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but those who voted for Bush in 2000 can't pretend to be surprised by this.

[George W. Bush]

• Practically the ONLY Democrats who actually won seats were those Mid-Western Democrats who wrapped themselves in the Second Amendment and ran non-stop TV commercials of themselves pictured with a rifle in one hand and a prize Buck in the other. They succeeded where the National Democrat Party failed.
• There were some exceptions to this rule. A few Southern Democrats appeared in every available TV spot with a fat leather-bound King James Bible in hand, and actually ran to the Right of their Republican opponents on the critical Abortion issue. These Democrats also succeeded where the rest of their Party failed.

Somehow, I missed this in the election aftermath. I guess I wasn't paying much attention. Any threads or sources for the breakdown on these Blue Dog Dems?

[WorkingClassFilth]

"Doan worry, be happy! After all, we conservatives are making such wonderful gains all across the land!"

We are - and we are because of internal debatel like this that sharpen the tone and direction of grassroots pressures on an erstwhile 'Conservative' Republicanism. It is the embodied effort of the active citizens that have driven things to this point in spite of inertia and establishment politics. This division is merely serving to define the next fork in th road.

BTW, we just got 'Shall Issue' reforms in our carry laws in Minnesota last week - the Socialist Republic of Minnesota that is. Complete with shrieking, crying, swearing and threats from the Left.

No killing and insurrection needed. Try it, you'll like it.

[PhilipFreneau]

The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.

Could someone please explain to the NRA that the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting!

[Teacher317]

Glavin schmelgen, the sarcasm meter is off the charts!

[billbears]

Anyone who had bothered to learn what this guy stood for knew what they were getting when they voted for him

Come on now shelton. We didn't have time to learn his actual policies!! He had an R beside his name so that made it a-okay. Although I know what you mean. The exact thing happened here in NC in 2002 when Giddy Dolt ran. Never mind the documented evidence of her big government policies. We were supposed to vote for her just because she ran on the Republican ticket. And she's anti-gun as well. One of many reasons I didn't vote for her

[Kevin Curry]

I simply asked the covert anti-government guerrillas here what their plan was for defeating the AWB. It is clear from their evasive mumbly-peg answers that they have none other than taking on the feds mano a mano with AK-47s (or whatever their weapon du jour might be). It is very obviuos that some of these twits are postively lusting after the opportunity to start popping people at long range with sniper rifles. That's not very Christlike, now, is it? It certainly isn't very smart.

In this Republic of ours we share poltical power with large numbers other citizens who also have the power to vote in lawmakers who often do not agree with our favored lawmakers. Anyone who aspires to be president must keep this in mind. Like it or not, the presidency is not a place for one-issue purists. Bush is tackling the Second Amendment-related issues as carefully as he can given the precarious and peculiar nature of presidential politics and the divisions in American society.

Meanwhile, middle-aged, beer-bellied, wheezy, trifocals-wearing Rambos-without-a-clue hint darkly of military action and are impatient to get beyond the politics of the thing and simply "get it on." Would most of them actually try to spark a civil war over the AWB? Probably not. A few might try. Would the frenzied exertions of a few spark a popular uprising to "throw the bums out"? Highly, highly unlikely. What is more likely is that uber-patriots would end up dead or on the run in scrub and hard terrain like the Texas anti-government group of a few years back.

The founders of this nation had a plan. They were highly intelligent men, focused, and patient, and sensible. They were wholly unlike the noisemakers here that are making silly guerrilla lip-smaking, chest-thumping noises.

Want a plan? Work to educate the easily panicked--don't feed their fears with silly, lip-pouty threats of armed revolt. Work hard to get good people elected at the primary stage (but be prepared to lose if they come across as too doctrinaire in the general election). Check your state laws and constitutions and shore up RKBA provision and laws through sympathetic local elected officials who are easier to reach and influence than federal elected officials. In sort, act dignified and responsible.

BTW, discussions of Jesus Christ have limited applicability to an issue that falls squarely in Caesar's realm. To invoke Jesus Christ in such an irrelevant fashion is to invoke him vainly. That, my OrthoPresbo keyboard rebel, is a violation of a commandment.

[Destructor]

"Abstain in 04 if Bush is a whore."

And be ruled by Al Gore? Think on it some more!

[harpseal]

"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."

This is the key point in all this without George W. Bush actively working to support the ban it will expire of its own accord. So far we have yet to see anything more than a statement from a White House spokesperson.